Mormonism help.

[Randy_Carson]

If it is a true principle, the apostasy becomes a certain reality by virtue of the history of corrupt men who held that authority at one time.

Well, there is the problem for you. That “if”.

Here’s why:

THE IMPACT OF SIN ON CHURCH AUTHORITY

If a Church leader is guilty of gross immorality, does his sin invalidate his position or authority?

Many, if not most, Protestants would say that it does, and they often use this line of reasoning to justify their denial of the authority of the Catholic Church. They cite historical events such as the Crusades, the Inquisition or reign of the Borgia Popes as evidence that the Church has lost its claim to moral and spiritual authority.

Such a response, however, is unbiblical. For example, Scripture states that Jesus knew “from the beginning” who would betray him – namely Judas, whom Jesus calls a “devil” (cf. John 6:64–71). This fact is significant, since Judas was selected as an apostle even though Jesus knew that he was corrupt.

Another example would be found in Jesus’ teaching on “Moses’ seat” found in the opening verses of Matthew 23: “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)

“Moses’ seat” is a phrase that referred to a position of legitimate teaching authority held by the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. Later, Jesus condemned these men as “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “blind fools,” “serpents,” and a “brood of vipers.” But in the passage above, Jesus specifically instructed the crowds and his disciples to obey these leaders – despite their corruption – because of the authority of their position. That is sobering stuff.

If it were true that immorality invalidated a religious leader’s authority, then why did Jesus command his followers to “obey and do everything” the scribes and Pharisees tell them? Jesus merely admonished his followers not to follow their hypocritical example. There is not even the slightest hint that their positions had been forfeited or abrogated because of their hypocrisy or immorality. If anything, the reverse is true because Jesus validated these leaders’ office by telling people to obey them. From this, we see that sin and corruption found in the individual office holders has no impact whatsoever on the authority of the office itself.

In the Parable of the Weeds found in Matthew 13, Jesus tells His disciples to anticipate corruption within the Church. He said:

Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. "The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ (Matthew 13:24-30)

Notice it is not the world at large that is being described but rather the “kingdom of heaven” or Church that is portrayed as the field containing both wheat and weeds. Jesus does not indicate that weeds (sinners) should be uprooted from the field (Church) until the separation done at the time of the final harvest.

The Church is not a paradise for saints who are already perfected but a hospital for the spiritually sick who are being healed.

Jesus clearly taught that sins of individual Church leaders do not invalidate the authority of the positions those leaders hold. These sins, whether real or imagined, do not undermine the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church and do not provide an excuse for those who refuse to acknowledge and obey her. The authority given by God to the Church and the office of the Papacy is the same today as it was in the days of Peter, Linus, Anacletus and Clement because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Jesus does not indicate that weeds (sinners) should be uprooted from the field (Church) until the separation done at the time of the final harvest.

According to the Mormons, the master should have simply abandoned the weedy field and found another field to plant in.

But that’s not what the master did.

 

[VinnyDee78]

Well, there is the problem for you. That “if”.

Here’s why:

THE IMPACT OF SIN ON CHURCH AUTHORITY

If a Church leader is guilty of gross immorality, does his sin invalidate his position or authority?

Many, if not most, Protestants would say that it does, and they often use this line of reasoning to justify their denial of the authority of the Catholic Church. They cite historical events such as the Crusades, the Inquisition or reign of the Borgia Popes as evidence that the Church has lost its claim to moral and spiritual authority.

There is no if for me because I accept this as a true principle. The priesthood and authority from God to act in His name is not to be trifled with - and therefore Amen to that broken chain of apostolic authority.

I did not consider the volumes written against the existence of Christ and His divine sonship before inquiring of God. I simply asked, my heart was right before Him - and received that knowledge.

Living correct principles leads to receiving the promised blessings.

V/R Vinny

 

[DavidFilmer]

There is no if for me because I accept this as a true principle.

Why? Because Smith said so?

I’m not being flippant - I *really *want to know why you would believe such a thing. It has no basis in either Scripture or the history of the Early Church.

 

[VinnyDee78]

Why? Because Smith said so?

I’m not being flippant - I *really *want to know why you would believe such a thing. It has no basis in either Scripture or the history of the Early Church.

There are a lot of things the Bible does not have in it. But dig down deep into your heart and consider the words. The reason I know it to be true is two fold (maybe more, but this is what comes to mind).

One because I hold the priesthood and when I have been unrighteous (i.e., argument with wife, yelled at kids, or whatever…) the Spirit withdraws. It takes some time and experience to know this.

Two - While Joseph Smith was translating the plates he had some words with his wife. When he tried to resume the translation, he was unable. He apologized to his wife (repented) and set his heart right before the Lord and his gift returned. I know for myself this is the way it works.

“…the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.” D&C 121:36-37

If I as a man can experience the Spirit’s withdrawal for a small deed of unrighteousness as described - what heinous crimes would it take for the Spirit to completely withdraw from the man who holds the keys to the authority on the earth from God? I suspect he was under greater accountability and condemnation for any act of rebellion against God and/or His word.

Can you account for that? I think not (not being flippant - just wouldn’t base my salvation on it/them).

As you can guess, I’m not big on historical merit (nice to know), but I am big on experience as my teacher. One I can trust, the other will always be suspect. We live in a time when communication and availability to information is greater than any other generation of time, and most newspaper reporters can’t get the story right… what would give me confidence that the scibes over a two thousand year period of time got anything right historically and again- the principle is true and I know it to be so.

V/R Vinny

 

[DavidFilmer]

There are a lot of things the Bible does not have in it.

On that point we are in complete agreement. I guess we just disagree about who has the authority to define doctrine that isn’t Biblical. Catholics claim (and Mormons agree) that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ and was given this authority. So we agree on that. But Mormons believe the Church itself fell into apostasy and thus lost that authority.

But dig down deep into your heart and consider the words.

My heart is not a reliable guide (I know this from experience). I also notice that lots of folks have unreliable heart-guides (suicide bombers, for example).

One because I hold the priesthood and when I have been unrighteous… the Spirit withdraws.

I suppose a Catholic could agree with this through our understanding that all sin impedes the soul and interferes with our relationship with God (and mortal sin kills the soul and separates us from God). But a Catholic would be uncomfortable with the idea that the Spirit withdraws from us (is this a punishment?). We think in terms that *we *withdraw (to some degree) from the Grace of God.

If I as a man can experience the Spirit’s withdrawal for a small deed of unrighteousness as described - what heinous crimes would it take for the Spirit to completely withdraw from the man who holds the keys to the authority on the earth from God?

Well, it wouldn’t require “heinous crimes” - it would only take a single mortal sin (which doesn’t even need to be all that heinous).

I suspect he was under greater accountability and condemnation for any act of rebellion against God and/or His word.

Sure, spiritual leaders are held to a higher standard.

Catholics have no problem admitting that our leaders (including Popes) can (and have, and will) commit mortal sin. And if you wanted to claim, “Many Popes could be in hell” then I don’t think anyone on this forum would argue the point (if you said “ARE in hell” you would get argument only because we cannot know it with certainty, but I think it’s likely, and I think most participants here would agree).

Can you account for that?

Oh, sure. A few Popes have been wicked men (my “favorite” bad Pope is Alexander VI - now there was a rascal; surely the worst of them all). But did any of these “bad Popes” ever try to change the moral teaching of the Church to look favorably on theft, fornication, or murder? Had they done so then the Church herself *would *be apostate. But it never happened.

The Church is “holy” because her Doctrine is holy (and no Pope has ever done anything to change that). Her members, on the other hand, are *all *sinners (including priests, bishops and Popes).

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

my dear friends. i have been strugling with a problem for it seems 4ever. fortunately, my father is a catholic, but unfortunately my mother is a mormon. i have never really had a problem with this. but as i have grown up. i have realized mormonism is invalid. but when the missionaries come to my door. they always beat me

not like i was trying to. but more importantly. i can’t summarize to my self why mormonism is wrong? i know catholicism is valid and the only church. but how do i know mormonism is wrong?

thank you. and god bless

Although Mormons are technically “Christians”, their beliefs are quite unorthodox. I suppose you can go with that, considering their history of Joseph Smith, a flock of seagulls, and Jesus Christ flying to America…

Deeming any religion as “invalid” is actually pretty easy. It just takes a lot of research and understanding.

I hope that helps.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[VinnyDee78]

On that point we are in complete agreement. I guess we just disagree about who has the authority to define doctrine that isn’t Biblical. Catholics claim (and Mormons agree) that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ and was given this authority. So we agree on that. But Mormons believe the Church itself fell into apostasy and thus lost that authority.

My heart is not a reliable guide (I know this from experience). I also notice that lots of folks have unreliable heart-guides (suicide bombers, for example).

I suppose a Catholic could agree with this through our understanding that all sin impedes the soul and interferes with our relationship with God (and mortal sin kills the soul and separates us from God). But a Catholic would be uncomfortable with the idea that the Spirit withdraws from us (is this a punishment?). We think in terms that *we *withdraw (to some degree) from the Grace of God.

Well, it wouldn’t require “heinous crimes” - it would only take a single mortal sin (which doesn’t even need to be all that heinous).

Sure, spiritual leaders are held to a higher standard.

Catholics have no problem admitting that our leaders (including Popes) can (and have, and will) commit mortal sin. And if you wanted to claim, “Many Popes could be in hell” then I don’t think anyone on this forum would argue the point (if you said “ARE in hell” you would get argument only because we cannot know it with certainty, but I think it’s likely, and I think most participants here would agree).

Oh, sure. A few Popes have been wicked men (my “favorite” bad Pope is Alexander VI - now there was a rascal; surely the worst of them all). But did any of these “bad Popes” ever try to change the moral teaching of the Church to look favorably on theft, fornication, or murder? Had they done so then the Church herself *would *be apostate. But it never happened.

The Church is “holy” because her Doctrine is holy (and no Pope has ever done anything to change that). Her members, on the other hand, are *all *sinners (including priests, bishops and Popes).

Thoughtful analysis - I appreciate that. I do not know enough about your rascal Popes to comment, speculate or judge. I believe that that was only part of the withdrawal of the priesthood authority, but I think there was more going on, even the apostles of the day were combating apostasy and different notions and traditions that skewed the pure doctrine.

In your mind, what kept things in check when they were gone? I’m asking the question rhetorically, but don’t want you to spend your time on a historical lesson - had that one before - many times.

I honestly believe God knew what would happen and it played out just that way. In the end, evil will not triumph over His church… we have a ways to go yet (I hope). And we believe His original Apostles continue to work on our behalf building His kingdom in preparation for the second coming of Christ.

V/R Vinny

 

[hosemonkey]

Although Mormons are technically “Christians”, their beliefs are quite unorthodox.

Disagree on one point, agree on another.
mormons are nominally “christian”, but actually closer to Hindus than anything. And yes, their beliefs are quite unorthodox. Closer to Hindus in that they believe in a multiplicity of “gods”, and extremely unorthodox in many beliefs that directly oppose Christianity. A false religion founded by a false “prophet”.

 

[DavidFilmer]

In your mind, what kept things in check when they were gone?

(I’m assuming “they” refers to the Apostles).

The Apostles appointed (and ordained) successors. They quickly filled the vacancy of Judas (Acts 1:21-26). As the Church expanded, additional Bishops were ordained and set over these new areas (Timothy in Lystra (1Tim 4:14) and Titus in Crete (Tit 1:5), for example). These Bishops ordained others, who ordained others, and so on to this present day (this is called “Apostolic Succession” and is absolutely essential for the validity of Catholic authority).

BTW, if you’re interested, it’s trivial to prove that the line of succession of every single Bishop alive today is valid beyond all doubt.

 

[Stephen168]

One because I hold the priesthood and when I have been unrighteous (i.e., argument with wife, yelled at kids, or whatever…) the Spirit withdraws.

Does that mean, when you yell at your kids, you have lost your authority forever?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thoughtful analysis - I appreciate that. I do not know enough about your rascal Popes to comment, speculate or judge. I believe that that was only part of the withdrawal of the priesthood authority, but I think there was more going on, even the apostles of the day were combating apostasy and different notions and traditions that skewed the pure doctrine.

Rubbish.

Jesus’ own words refute you.

“Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)

“Moses’ seat” is a phrase that referred to a position of legitimate teaching authority held by the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. Later, Jesus condemned these men as “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “blind fools,” “serpents,” and a “brood of vipers.” But in the passage above, Jesus specifically instructed the crowds and his disciples to obey these leaders – despite their corruption – because of the authority of their position.

There is no evidence that Jesus was withdrawing the authority of the priests of his own day in that passage. It didn’t happened later either, and the Mormon “Great Apostasy” is a crock.

Questions for Mormons Concerning the Great Apostasy

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints claims to be the true, restored Church established by God after all other Christian churches had fallen into total apostasy. In a 1992 article for This Rock magazine, author Patrick Madrid provided a compelling argument that this Mormon claim is the lynchpin of LDS theology:
“The late Bruce McConkie, a Mormon apostle and, during his life, perhaps Mormonism’s leading theologian, explained the concept of the Great Apostasy this way:

“This universal apostasy began in the days of the ancient apostles themselves; and it was known to and foretold by them. . . . With the loss of the Gospel, the nations of the earth went into a moral eclipse called the Dark Ages. Apostasy was universal. . . . [T]his darkness still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored Gospel.”(Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966 ed.), 43-44.
“Mormonism’s claim to be the “restored” church hangs upon there having been a complete apostasy. The late James E. Talmadge, prolific Mormon writer and member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, wrote:
​

‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims the restoration of the Gospel, and re-establishment of the Church as of old, in this, the dispensation of the fullness of times. Such restoration and re-establishment, with the modern bestowal of the holy priesthood, would be unnecessary and indeed impossible had the Church of Christ continued among men with unbroken succession of priesthood and power, since the meridian of time [the time of Christ].
​

‘The restored Church affirms that a general apostasy developed during and after the apostolic period, and that the primitive Church lost its power, authority, and graces as a divine institution, and degenerated into an earthly organization only. The significance and importance of the great apostasy, as a condition precedent to the re-establishment of the Church in modern times, is obvious. If the alleged apostasy of the primitive Church was not a reality, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the divine institution its name proclaims’(James E. Talmadge, The Great Apostasy (Salt Lake City: Deseret Books, 1968 ed.), iii. For a discussion of apostolic succession see Warren H. Carroll, The Founding of Christendom and The Building of Christendom (Front Royal: Christendom College Press, 1985, 1987).) (emphasis added).
“TALMADGE is correct in evaluating the consequences, of course: if no apostasy, no restoration, and if no restoration, no Mormonism.”
​

The issue to be examined, therefore, is whether total apostasy of the Christian Church was possible. The following verses suggest that apostasy was not possible, and questions about these verses are submitted to our Mormon friends.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church fell into total apostasy, does this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into totally apostasy for nearly 1700 years, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church fell into apostasy, did Jesus not give the Counselor or did the Counselor simply fail to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church fell into total apostasy, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into total apostasy? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

Madrid also reported that “in a written exchange (*This Rock, *(July 1991), 18.), Mormon apologist Robert Starling, attempting to prove the divine origin of the Mormon Church, cited the Rabbi Gamaliel’s prediction regarding the New Testament Church: "f this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God" (Acts 5:38-39). Starling unwittingly undercut his own claim of a great apostasy. Gamaliel was right. The Church Jesus built could not be destroyed.”

 

[Catholic_Dude]

If Jesus flopped, then Christianity is founded upon sand. It makes no sense at all to say you restored a Church as weak and feeble as the one that failed 1800 years prior.